PRAKESH CHAND AGRAWAL Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri B.N. Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. List of old cases to be taken up at 2.00 p.m. has been revised. None appears on behalf of the Respondent No. 2, although counter and rejoinder-affidavits are available on record.

(2.) The Petitioner claims to have been appointed by the Respondent No. 2 as clerk and is aggrieved by the award dated 19.10.1994 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed in the Adjudication Case No. 81/82 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, No. II U.P. Kanpur.

(3.) Sri B.N. Singh has submitted that a specific finding has been recorded by the Labour Court that the Petitioner is a workman within the definition of Section 2(z) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the U.P. Act') and further that the termination of service of the Petitioner was illegal and invalid. He states that when such a finding of fact has been recorded and it was not challenged by the employer, the labour court ought to have granted reinstatement with full back wages to the Petitioner and having not so done, the impugned award is illegal. According to him the labour court has only awarded compensation of 3.33 years wages to the Petitioner without reinstating him.